Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2501	control, N = 1251	treatment, N = 1251	p-value2
age	250	51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)	50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)	51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)	0.559
gender	250				0.327
f		204 (82%)	99 (79%)	105 (84%)
m		46 (18%)	26 (21%)	20 (16%)
occupation	250				0.711
day_training		6 (2.4%)	2 (1.6%)	4 (3.2%)
full_time		29 (12%)	14 (11%)	15 (12%)
homemaker		32 (13%)	15 (12%)	17 (14%)
other		4 (1.6%)	1 (0.8%)	3 (2.4%)
part_time		43 (17%)	23 (18%)	20 (16%)
retired		61 (24%)	28 (22%)	33 (26%)
self_employ		8 (3.2%)	4 (3.2%)	4 (3.2%)
shelter		4 (1.6%)	4 (3.2%)	0 (0%)
student		4 (1.6%)	2 (1.6%)	2 (1.6%)
t_and_e		4 (1.6%)	3 (2.4%)	1 (0.8%)
unemploy		55 (22%)	29 (23%)	26 (21%)
marital	250				0.776
cohabitation		2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.6%)
divore		27 (11%)	15 (12%)	12 (9.6%)
in_relationship		6 (2.4%)	4 (3.2%)	2 (1.6%)
married		76 (30%)	35 (28%)	41 (33%)
none		117 (47%)	59 (47%)	58 (46%)
seperation		3 (1.2%)	2 (1.6%)	1 (0.8%)
widow		19 (7.6%)	10 (8.0%)	9 (7.2%)
edu	250				0.690
bachelor		54 (22%)	24 (19%)	30 (24%)
diploma		42 (17%)	25 (20%)	17 (14%)
hd_ad		6 (2.4%)	4 (3.2%)	2 (1.6%)
none		1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)
postgraduate		17 (6.8%)	9 (7.2%)	8 (6.4%)
primary		22 (8.8%)	9 (7.2%)	13 (10%)
secondary_1_3		29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (9.6%)
secondary_4_5		66 (26%)	31 (25%)	35 (28%)
secondary_6_7		13 (5.2%)	6 (4.8%)	7 (5.6%)
fam_income	250
10001_12000		10 (4.0%)	3 (2.4%)	7 (5.6%)
12001_14000		12 (4.8%)	4 (3.2%)	8 (6.4%)
14001_16000		12 (4.8%)	4 (3.2%)	8 (6.4%)
16001_18000		5 (2.0%)	3 (2.4%)	2 (1.6%)
18001_20000		12 (4.8%)	8 (6.4%)	4 (3.2%)
20001_above		43 (17%)	26 (21%)	17 (14%)
2001_4000		37 (15%)	18 (14%)	19 (15%)
4001_6000		31 (12%)	14 (11%)	17 (14%)
6001_8000		22 (8.8%)	13 (10%)	9 (7.2%)
8001_10000		20 (8.0%)	11 (8.8%)	9 (7.2%)
below_2000		46 (18%)	21 (17%)	25 (20%)
medication	250	224 (90%)	112 (90%)	112 (90%)	>0.999
onset_duration	250	15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)	14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)	15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)	0.817
onset_age	250	36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72)	35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)	36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68)	0.730
diagnosis_schizophrenia	250	50 (20%)	25 (20%)	25 (20%)	>0.999
diagnosis_delusional	250	13 (5.2%)	7 (5.6%)	6 (4.8%)	0.776
diagnosis_schizoaffective	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_schizoid	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_transient_psychotic	250	2 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic	250
no		250 (100%)	125 (100%)	125 (100%)
diagnosis_depression	250	138 (55%)	69 (55%)	69 (55%)	>0.999
diagnosis_bipolar	250	24 (9.6%)	10 (8.0%)	14 (11%)	0.390
diagnosis_anxiety	250	87 (35%)	46 (37%)	41 (33%)	0.507
diagnosis_phobia	250	10 (4.0%)	3 (2.4%)	7 (5.6%)	0.197
diagnosis_personality_disorders	250	3 (1.2%)	0 (0%)	3 (2.4%)	0.247
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive	250	1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)	>0.999
diagnosis_other	250	29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (9.6%)	0.323
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2501	control, N = 1251	treatment, N = 1251	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	250	3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	0.406
recovery_stage_b	250	17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)	17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)	17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)	0.835
ras_confidence	250	29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)	29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)	30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)	0.637
ras_willingness	250	11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)	11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)	11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)	0.905
ras_goal	250	17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)	17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)	0.413
ras_reliance	250	13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)	13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)	13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)	0.614
ras_domination	250	9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)	9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)	0.206
symptom	250	30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)	31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)	30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)	0.301
slof_work	250	22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)	22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)	22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)	0.989
slof_relationship	250	24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)	24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)	25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)	0.252
satisfaction	250	20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)	19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)	21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)	0.136
mhc_emotional	250	10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)	10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)	11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)	0.459
mhc_social	250	15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)	15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)	15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)	>0.999
mhc_psychological	250	21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)	21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)	21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)	0.715
resilisnce	250	16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)	16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)	16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)	0.177
social_provision	250	13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)	13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)	0.032
els_value_living	250	16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)	16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)	17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)	0.331
els_life_fulfill	250	12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)	12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)	13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)	0.100
els	250	29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)	29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)	30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)	0.154
social_connect	250	27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)	27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)	26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)	0.293
shs_agency	250	14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)	13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)	14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)	0.110
shs_pathway	250	15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)	15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)	16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)	0.057
shs	250	30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)	29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)	31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)	0.070
esteem	250	12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)	12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)	12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)	0.732
mlq_search	250	14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)	14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)	15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)	0.105
mlq_presence	250	13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)	13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)	13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)	0.396
mlq	250	28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)	27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)	28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)	0.183
empower	250	19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)	18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)	19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)	0.351
ismi_resistance	250	14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)	14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)	14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	0.981
ismi_discrimation	250	11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)	11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)	11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)	0.823
sss_affective	250	10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)	10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	0.629
sss_behavior	250	10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)	10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)	0.867
sss_cognitive	250	8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)	8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)	0.402
sss	250	29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)	29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)	29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)	0.682
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.20	0.109	2.99, 3.41
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.128	0.154	-0.430, 0.174	0.407
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.029	0.137	-0.297, 0.239	0.831
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.293	0.198	-0.094, 0.681	0.139
	Pseudo R square	0.006
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.269	17.4, 18.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.080	0.381	-0.826, 0.666	0.834
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.236	0.257	-0.739, 0.267	0.359
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.04	0.372	0.307, 1.77	0.006
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.7	0.504	28.7, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.336	0.712	-1.06, 1.73	0.638
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.689	0.411	-0.116, 1.49	0.095
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.19	0.597	0.021, 2.36	0.047
	Pseudo R square	0.020
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.6	0.185	11.3, 12.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.032	0.261	-0.479, 0.543	0.902
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.021	0.180	-0.332, 0.374	0.908
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.316	0.261	-0.195, 0.828	0.227
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.291	16.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.344	0.412	-0.463, 1.15	0.404
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.411	0.263	-0.104, 0.926	0.120
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.393	0.381	-0.355, 1.14	0.305
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.263	12.6, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.184	0.372	-0.545, 0.913	0.621
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.363	0.215	-0.059, 0.784	0.093
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.276	0.312	-0.337, 0.888	0.379
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ras_domination	(Intercept)	9.95	0.215	9.53, 10.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.392	0.304	-0.987, 0.203	0.198
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.066	0.216	-0.358, 0.490	0.761
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.767	0.314	0.152, 1.38	0.015
	Pseudo R square	0.014
symptom	(Intercept)	31.5	0.876	29.8, 33.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.29	1.239	-3.72, 1.14	0.300
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.52	0.681	-2.85, -0.186	0.027
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.122	0.989	-1.82, 2.06	0.902
	Pseudo R square	0.009
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.1	0.408	21.3, 22.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.008	0.577	-1.14, 1.12	0.989
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.380	0.353	-0.312, 1.07	0.283
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.274	0.513	-0.731, 1.28	0.594
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.5	0.515	23.5, 25.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.840	0.729	-0.588, 2.27	0.250
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.349	0.439	-0.510, 1.21	0.427
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.276	0.637	-0.972, 1.52	0.665
	Pseudo R square	0.009
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.7	0.643	18.4, 20.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.37	0.909	-0.414, 3.15	0.133
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.20	0.501	0.222, 2.19	0.017
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.110	0.728	-1.54, 1.32	0.880
	Pseudo R square	0.014
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.6	0.335	9.99, 11.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.352	0.474	-0.576, 1.28	0.458
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.345	0.267	-0.178, 0.868	0.198
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.002	0.388	-0.758, 0.761	0.997
	Pseudo R square	0.004
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.1	0.542	14.1, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	0.767	-1.50, 1.50	1.00
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.817	0.443	-0.052, 1.69	0.067
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.220	0.644	-1.04, 1.48	0.733
	Pseudo R square	0.006
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	0.627	20.3, 22.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.320	0.887	-1.42, 2.06	0.719
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.06	0.488	0.101, 2.01	0.031
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.162	0.709	-1.55, 1.23	0.819
	Pseudo R square	0.005
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.2	0.390	15.4, 16.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.760	0.551	-0.321, 1.84	0.169
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.732	0.353	0.040, 1.42	0.039
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.522	0.512	-0.482, 1.53	0.309
	Pseudo R square	0.025
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.2	0.250	12.7, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.744	0.354	0.050, 1.44	0.036
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.117	0.217	-0.542, 0.307	0.588
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.467	0.315	-0.149, 1.08	0.139
	Pseudo R square	0.029
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.8	0.285	16.2, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.392	0.403	-0.398, 1.18	0.332
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.368	0.239	-0.099, 0.836	0.124
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.325	0.347	-0.355, 1.00	0.350
	Pseudo R square	0.014
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.4	0.294	11.8, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.696	0.416	-0.120, 1.51	0.096
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.293	0.231	-0.159, 0.745	0.205
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.257	0.335	-0.400, 0.913	0.444
	Pseudo R square	0.019
els	(Intercept)	29.2	0.539	28.1, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.09	0.762	-0.406, 2.58	0.155
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.675	0.403	-0.115, 1.47	0.096
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.569	0.586	-0.579, 1.72	0.333
	Pseudo R square	0.018
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.9	0.818	26.3, 29.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.22	1.156	-3.48, 1.05	0.294
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.805	0.642	-2.06, 0.452	0.211
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.53	0.932	-3.36, 0.293	0.101
	Pseudo R square	0.018
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.8	0.447	13.0, 14.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.633	-0.232, 2.25	0.112
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.408	0.346	-0.271, 1.09	0.241
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.500	0.503	-0.486, 1.49	0.322
	Pseudo R square	0.019
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.3	0.363	14.6, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.01	0.514	0.001, 2.01	0.051
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.560	0.309	-0.046, 1.17	0.072
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.340	0.449	-0.540, 1.22	0.450
	Pseudo R square	0.027
shs	(Intercept)	29.2	0.772	27.7, 30.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.02	1.091	-0.123, 4.15	0.066
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.966	0.600	-0.210, 2.14	0.109
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.836	0.872	-0.872, 2.55	0.339
	Pseudo R square	0.024
esteem	(Intercept)	12.8	0.140	12.5, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.072	0.198	-0.461, 0.317	0.717
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.222	0.166	-0.548, 0.104	0.184
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.320	0.241	-0.151, 0.791	0.185
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.4	0.310	13.8, 15.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.720	0.439	-0.140, 1.58	0.102
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.636	0.323	0.003, 1.27	0.050
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.669	0.468	-1.59, 0.248	0.154
	Pseudo R square	0.008
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.377	12.4, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.464	0.533	-0.581, 1.51	0.385
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.640	0.345	-0.037, 1.32	0.065
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.309	0.501	-0.672, 1.29	0.538
	Pseudo R square	0.013
mlq	(Intercept)	27.5	0.618	26.3, 28.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.18	0.874	-0.529, 2.90	0.177
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.29	0.582	0.144, 2.43	0.028
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.378	0.844	-2.03, 1.28	0.655
	Pseudo R square	0.011
empower	(Intercept)	18.8	0.402	18.1, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.528	0.569	-0.587, 1.64	0.354
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.757	0.338	0.095, 1.42	0.026
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.052	0.490	-0.909, 1.01	0.916
	Pseudo R square	0.011
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.224	13.9, 14.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.008	0.316	-0.628, 0.612	0.980
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.208	0.244	-0.270, 0.687	0.395
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.531	0.354	-0.162, 1.22	0.134
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.276	11.3, 12.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.088	0.390	-0.852, 0.676	0.822
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.481	0.283	-1.03, 0.073	0.091
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.485	0.410	-1.29, 0.318	0.238
	Pseudo R square	0.016
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.325	9.76, 11.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.224	0.459	-0.676, 1.12	0.626
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.396	0.266	-0.917, 0.125	0.138
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.675	0.386	-1.43, 0.081	0.082
	Pseudo R square	0.012
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.332	9.52, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.080	0.470	-1.00, 0.841	0.865
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.539	0.272	-1.07, -0.007	0.049
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.252	0.395	-1.03, 0.522	0.524
	Pseudo R square	0.008
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.71	0.333	8.06, 9.37
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.408	0.471	-0.516, 1.33	0.387
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.361	0.268	-0.885, 0.163	0.179
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.660	0.389	-1.42, 0.102	0.091
	Pseudo R square	0.010
sss	(Intercept)	29.3	0.934	27.5, 31.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.552	1.321	-2.04, 3.14	0.676
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.30	0.686	-2.64, 0.048	0.060
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.53	0.997	-3.48, 0.429	0.128
	Pseudo R square	0.010
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(428) = 29.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(428) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.24], t(428) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.68], t(428) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(428) = 66.39, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(428) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.27], t(428) = -0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.09])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.31, 1.77], t(428) = 2.79, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.10, 0.59])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(428) = 58.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(428) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.49], t(428) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [0.02, 2.36], t(428) = 2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [3.78e-03, 0.42])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(428) = 63.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.37], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.908; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.83], t(428) = 1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.40])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(428) = 59.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(428) = 0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.93], t(428) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.14], t(428) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.35])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(428) = 49.95, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(428) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78], t(428) = 1.69, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.89], t(428) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(428) = 46.33, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(428) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.49], t(428) = 0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [0.15, 1.38], t(428) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [0.06, 0.58])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(428) = 35.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(428) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.85, -0.19], t(428) = -2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.82, 2.06], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(428) = 54.06, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(428) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.07], t(428) = 1.08, p = 0.282; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.28], t(428) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(428) = 47.57, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(428) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.21], t(428) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.52], t(428) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.92], t(428) = 30.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(428) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [0.22, 2.19], t(428) = 2.40, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.32], t(428) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(428) = 31.80, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(428) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.87], t(428) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53e-03, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.76], t(428) = 3.94e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = 4.10e-04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.07, 16.19], t(428) = 27.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.31e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(428) = -3.01e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -1.35e-15, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.69], t(428) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-8.77e-03, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.48], t(428) = 0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.25])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(428) = 34.35, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(428) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.10, 2.01], t(428) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [0.01, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.23], t(428) = -0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(428) = 41.49, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(428) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.04, 1.42], t(428) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [9.13e-03, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.53], t(428) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.35])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(428) = 52.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(428) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.31], t(428) = -0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.11])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.08], t(428) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.38])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(428) = 58.81, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(428) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.84], t(428) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.00], t(428) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(428) = 42.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(428) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.74], t(428) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.91], t(428) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(428) = 54.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(428) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.47], t(428) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.72], t(428) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.28, 29.48], t(428) = 34.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.05], t(428) = -1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.45], t(428) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.36, 0.29], t(428) = -1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.03])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(428) = 30.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(428) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.09], t(428) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.49], t(428) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(428) = 42.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [1.14e-03, 2.01], t(428) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.78e-04, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.17], t(428) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.22], t(428) = 0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.68], t(428) = 37.80, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.15], t(428) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.14], t(428) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.55], t(428) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(428) = 91.27, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(428) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.10], t(428) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.79], t(428) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.51])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(428) = 46.26, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(428) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [3.13e-03, 1.27], t(428) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [8.99e-04, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.25], t(428) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.07])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(428) = 34.87, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(428) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.32], t(428) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-8.64e-03, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.29], t(428) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.30])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(428) = 44.51, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(428) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [0.14, 2.43], t(428) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.28], t(428) = -0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.18])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(428) = 46.84, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.64], t(428) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [0.10, 1.42], t(428) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.02, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.01], t(428) = 0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.23])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(428) = 64.21, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(428) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.69], t(428) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.22], t(428) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.49])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(428) = 42.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(428) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.07], t(428) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.32], t(428) = -1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.10])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(428) = 32.02, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(428) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.12], t(428) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.08], t(428) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.02])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(428) = 30.62, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(428) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.07, -6.51e-03], t(428) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.29, -1.75e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.52], t(428) = -0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.14])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(428) = 26.14, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(428) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.16], t(428) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.10], t(428) = -1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.03])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(428) = 31.36, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(428) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.64, 0.05], t(428) = -1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 4.57e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.48, 0.43], t(428) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.04])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	1,386.655	1,398.874	-690.327	1,380.655
recovery_stage_a	random	6	1,389.172	1,413.610	-688.586	1,377.172	3.483	3	0.323
recovery_stage_b	null	3	2,106.383	2,118.602	-1,050.192	2,100.383
recovery_stage_b	random	6	2,102.141	2,126.579	-1,045.070	2,090.141	10.242	3	0.017
ras_confidence	null	3	2,613.397	2,625.616	-1,303.699	2,607.397
ras_confidence	random	6	2,597.478	2,621.916	-1,292.739	2,585.478	21.920	3	0.000
ras_willingness	null	3	1,778.469	1,790.689	-886.235	1,772.469
ras_willingness	random	6	1,780.885	1,805.323	-884.442	1,768.885	3.585	3	0.310
ras_goal	null	3	2,159.533	2,171.752	-1,076.767	2,153.533
ras_goal	random	6	2,153.339	2,177.777	-1,070.669	2,141.339	12.195	3	0.007
ras_reliance	null	3	2,039.680	2,051.899	-1,016.840	2,033.680
ras_reliance	random	6	2,034.514	2,058.952	-1,011.257	2,022.514	11.166	3	0.011
ras_domination	null	3	1,929.670	1,941.889	-961.835	1,923.670
ras_domination	random	6	1,922.180	1,946.619	-955.090	1,910.180	13.489	3	0.004
symptom	null	3	3,066.013	3,078.232	-1,530.007	3,060.013
symptom	random	6	3,062.310	3,086.748	-1,525.155	3,050.310	9.703	3	0.021
slof_work	null	3	2,431.902	2,444.122	-1,212.951	2,425.902
slof_work	random	6	2,433.621	2,458.059	-1,210.810	2,421.621	4.282	3	0.233
slof_relationship	null	3	2,628.751	2,640.971	-1,311.376	2,622.751
slof_relationship	random	6	2,630.448	2,654.886	-1,309.224	2,618.448	4.303	3	0.231
satisfaction	null	3	2,800.379	2,812.599	-1,397.190	2,794.379
satisfaction	random	6	2,794.367	2,818.806	-1,391.184	2,782.367	12.012	3	0.007
mhc_emotional	null	3	2,233.038	2,245.257	-1,113.519	2,227.038
mhc_emotional	random	6	2,235.297	2,259.735	-1,111.649	2,223.297	3.741	3	0.291
mhc_social	null	3	2,664.285	2,676.504	-1,329.142	2,658.285
mhc_social	random	6	2,662.127	2,686.565	-1,325.063	2,650.127	8.158	3	0.043
mhc_psychological	null	3	2,774.107	2,786.326	-1,384.053	2,768.107
mhc_psychological	random	6	2,772.449	2,796.887	-1,380.224	2,760.449	7.658	3	0.054
resilisnce	null	3	2,420.330	2,432.549	-1,207.165	2,414.330
resilisnce	random	6	2,407.818	2,432.256	-1,197.909	2,395.818	18.512	3	0.000
social_provision	null	3	2,013.640	2,025.859	-1,003.820	2,007.640
social_provision	random	6	2,009.445	2,033.884	-998.723	1,997.445	10.195	3	0.017
els_value_living	null	3	2,116.960	2,129.179	-1,055.480	2,110.960
els_value_living	random	6	2,111.446	2,135.884	-1,049.723	2,099.446	11.514	3	0.009
els_life_fulfill	null	3	2,122.457	2,134.676	-1,058.228	2,116.457
els_life_fulfill	random	6	2,117.945	2,142.384	-1,052.973	2,105.945	10.511	3	0.015
els	null	3	2,636.032	2,648.251	-1,315.016	2,630.032
els	random	6	2,627.888	2,652.326	-1,307.944	2,615.888	14.145	3	0.003
social_connect	null	3	3,015.160	3,027.379	-1,504.580	3,009.160
social_connect	random	6	3,005.366	3,029.805	-1,496.683	2,993.366	15.793	3	0.001
shs_agency	null	3	2,482.431	2,494.650	-1,238.216	2,476.431
shs_agency	random	6	2,477.196	2,501.635	-1,232.598	2,465.196	11.235	3	0.011
shs_pathway	null	3	2,337.296	2,349.515	-1,165.648	2,331.296
shs_pathway	random	6	2,327.318	2,351.757	-1,157.659	2,315.318	15.978	3	0.001
shs	null	3	2,961.346	2,973.565	-1,477.673	2,955.346
shs	random	6	2,952.046	2,976.484	-1,470.023	2,940.046	15.301	3	0.002
esteem	null	3	1,591.140	1,603.359	-792.570	1,585.140
esteem	random	6	1,594.916	1,619.355	-791.458	1,582.916	2.223	3	0.527
mlq_search	null	3	2,250.192	2,262.411	-1,122.096	2,244.192
mlq_search	random	6	2,251.043	2,275.482	-1,119.522	2,239.043	5.149	3	0.161
mlq_presence	null	3	2,387.537	2,399.756	-1,190.768	2,381.537
mlq_presence	random	6	2,382.249	2,406.687	-1,185.124	2,370.249	11.288	3	0.010
mlq	null	3	2,822.287	2,834.506	-1,408.144	2,816.287
mlq	random	6	2,819.775	2,844.213	-1,403.887	2,807.775	8.513	3	0.037
empower	null	3	2,416.382	2,428.601	-1,205.191	2,410.382
empower	random	6	2,411.409	2,435.847	-1,199.704	2,399.409	10.973	3	0.012
ismi_resistance	null	3	1,982.771	1,994.990	-988.385	1,976.771
ismi_resistance	random	6	1,979.359	2,003.797	-983.680	1,967.359	9.412	3	0.024
ismi_discrimation	null	3	2,151.772	2,163.991	-1,072.886	2,145.772
ismi_discrimation	random	6	2,144.048	2,168.486	-1,066.024	2,132.048	13.724	3	0.003
sss_affective	null	3	2,227.965	2,240.185	-1,110.983	2,221.965
sss_affective	random	6	2,217.455	2,241.893	-1,102.728	2,205.455	16.510	3	0.001
sss_behavior	null	3	2,242.754	2,254.973	-1,118.377	2,236.754
sss_behavior	random	6	2,237.181	2,261.620	-1,112.591	2,225.181	11.573	3	0.009
sss_cognitive	null	3	2,242.646	2,254.865	-1,118.323	2,236.646
sss_cognitive	random	6	2,233.795	2,258.234	-1,110.898	2,221.795	14.850	3	0.002
sss	null	3	3,111.139	3,123.358	-1,552.569	3,105.139
sss	random	6	3,098.817	3,123.256	-1,543.409	3,086.817	18.321	3	0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	125	3.20 ± 1.22		125	3.07 ± 1.22		0.407	0.129
recovery_stage_a	2nd	97	3.17 ± 1.20	0.030	87	3.34 ± 1.20	-0.267	0.353	-0.167
recovery_stage_b	1st	125	17.88 ± 3.01		125	17.80 ± 3.01		0.834	0.044
recovery_stage_b	2nd	97	17.64 ± 2.87	0.129	87	18.60 ± 2.83	-0.439	0.024	-0.524
ras_confidence	1st	125	29.69 ± 5.63		125	30.02 ± 5.63		0.638	-0.116
ras_confidence	2nd	97	30.38 ± 5.28	-0.237	87	31.90 ± 5.16	-0.647	0.048	-0.526
ras_willingness	1st	125	11.62 ± 2.06		125	11.66 ± 2.06		0.902	-0.025
ras_willingness	2nd	97	11.64 ± 1.97	-0.016	87	11.99 ± 1.95	-0.263	0.230	-0.272
ras_goal	1st	125	17.18 ± 3.25		125	17.53 ± 3.25		0.404	-0.184
ras_goal	2nd	97	17.59 ± 3.09	-0.220	87	18.33 ± 3.03	-0.431	0.104	-0.395
ras_reliance	1st	125	13.14 ± 2.94		125	13.33 ± 2.94		0.621	-0.121
ras_reliance	2nd	97	13.51 ± 2.76	-0.238	87	13.97 ± 2.70	-0.420	0.255	-0.302
ras_domination	1st	125	9.95 ± 2.40		125	9.56 ± 2.40		0.198	0.254
ras_domination	2nd	97	10.02 ± 2.31	-0.043	87	10.39 ± 2.28	-0.540	0.268	-0.243
symptom	1st	125	31.50 ± 9.80		125	30.21 ± 9.80		0.300	0.268
symptom	2nd	97	29.98 ± 9.15	0.316	87	28.81 ± 8.92	0.291	0.382	0.243
slof_work	1st	125	22.06 ± 4.56		125	22.06 ± 4.56		0.989	0.003
slof_work	2nd	97	22.44 ± 4.31	-0.152	87	22.71 ± 4.22	-0.261	0.673	-0.106
slof_relationship	1st	125	24.50 ± 5.76		125	25.34 ± 5.76		0.250	-0.271
slof_relationship	2nd	97	24.85 ± 5.43	-0.112	87	25.97 ± 5.31	-0.201	0.160	-0.359
satisfaction	1st	125	19.66 ± 7.19		125	21.03 ± 7.19		0.133	-0.387
satisfaction	2nd	97	20.87 ± 6.71	-0.340	87	22.13 ± 6.54	-0.309	0.199	-0.355
mhc_emotional	1st	125	10.65 ± 3.74		125	11.00 ± 3.74		0.458	-0.187
mhc_emotional	2nd	97	10.99 ± 3.50	-0.183	87	11.35 ± 3.42	-0.184	0.489	-0.188
mhc_social	1st	125	15.13 ± 6.06		125	15.13 ± 6.06		1.000	0.000
mhc_social	2nd	97	15.94 ± 5.69	-0.261	87	16.16 ± 5.56	-0.331	0.791	-0.070
mhc_psychological	1st	125	21.55 ± 7.01		125	21.87 ± 7.01		0.719	-0.093
mhc_psychological	2nd	97	22.61 ± 6.55	-0.307	87	22.77 ± 6.38	-0.260	0.869	-0.046
resilisnce	1st	125	16.18 ± 4.36		125	16.94 ± 4.36		0.169	-0.303
resilisnce	2nd	97	16.91 ± 4.14	-0.292	87	18.19 ± 4.06	-0.501	0.035	-0.512
social_provision	1st	125	13.17 ± 2.80		125	13.91 ± 2.80		0.036	-0.485
social_provision	2nd	97	13.05 ± 2.64	0.077	87	14.26 ± 2.59	-0.228	0.002	-0.789
els_value_living	1st	125	16.76 ± 3.19		125	17.15 ± 3.19		0.331	-0.232
els_value_living	2nd	97	17.13 ± 3.00	-0.218	87	17.85 ± 2.93	-0.410	0.102	-0.424
els_life_fulfill	1st	125	12.41 ± 3.29		125	13.10 ± 3.29		0.096	-0.427
els_life_fulfill	2nd	97	12.70 ± 3.07	-0.180	87	13.65 ± 3.00	-0.338	0.034	-0.585
els	1st	125	29.17 ± 6.03		125	30.26 ± 6.03		0.155	-0.383
els	2nd	97	29.84 ± 5.61	-0.237	87	31.50 ± 5.46	-0.438	0.043	-0.583
social_connect	1st	125	27.88 ± 9.14		125	26.66 ± 9.14		0.294	0.268
social_connect	2nd	97	27.07 ± 8.54	0.178	87	24.32 ± 8.33	0.516	0.028	0.607
shs_agency	1st	125	13.84 ± 5.00		125	14.85 ± 5.00		0.112	-0.413
shs_agency	2nd	97	14.25 ± 4.67	-0.167	87	15.76 ± 4.55	-0.371	0.027	-0.617
shs_pathway	1st	125	15.33 ± 4.06		125	16.34 ± 4.06		0.051	-0.460
shs_pathway	2nd	97	15.89 ± 3.83	-0.256	87	17.24 ± 3.75	-0.411	0.016	-0.615
shs	1st	125	29.17 ± 8.63		125	31.18 ± 8.63		0.066	-0.476
shs	2nd	97	30.13 ± 8.05	-0.228	87	32.99 ± 7.85	-0.426	0.016	-0.673
esteem	1st	125	12.80 ± 1.57		125	12.73 ± 1.57		0.717	0.060
esteem	2nd	97	12.58 ± 1.54	0.185	87	12.83 ± 1.53	-0.082	0.274	-0.207
mlq_search	1st	125	14.36 ± 3.47		125	15.08 ± 3.47		0.102	-0.312
mlq_search	2nd	97	15.00 ± 3.35	-0.276	87	15.05 ± 3.31	0.014	0.918	-0.022
mlq_presence	1st	125	13.15 ± 4.22		125	13.62 ± 4.22		0.385	-0.189
mlq_presence	2nd	97	13.79 ± 4.01	-0.261	87	14.56 ± 3.94	-0.387	0.188	-0.316
mlq	1st	125	27.51 ± 6.91		125	28.70 ± 6.91		0.177	-0.286
mlq	2nd	97	28.80 ± 6.59	-0.311	87	29.60 ± 6.48	-0.219	0.404	-0.195
empower	1st	125	18.85 ± 4.50		125	19.38 ± 4.50		0.354	-0.221
empower	2nd	97	19.61 ± 4.23	-0.317	87	20.19 ± 4.14	-0.339	0.349	-0.243
ismi_resistance	1st	125	14.36 ± 2.50		125	14.35 ± 2.50		0.980	0.005
ismi_resistance	2nd	97	14.57 ± 2.43	-0.119	87	15.09 ± 2.41	-0.423	0.143	-0.299
ismi_discrimation	1st	125	11.79 ± 3.08		125	11.70 ± 3.08		0.822	0.044
ismi_discrimation	2nd	97	11.31 ± 2.97	0.238	87	10.74 ± 2.94	0.479	0.190	0.284
sss_affective	1st	125	10.40 ± 3.63		125	10.62 ± 3.63		0.626	-0.119
sss_affective	2nd	97	10.00 ± 3.41	0.211	87	9.55 ± 3.33	0.570	0.365	0.240
sss_behavior	1st	125	10.18 ± 3.72		125	10.10 ± 3.72		0.865	0.042
sss_behavior	2nd	97	9.64 ± 3.49	0.281	87	9.31 ± 3.41	0.412	0.514	0.173
sss_cognitive	1st	125	8.71 ± 3.73		125	9.12 ± 3.73		0.387	-0.216
sss_cognitive	2nd	97	8.35 ± 3.49	0.191	87	8.10 ± 3.41	0.540	0.621	0.133
sss	1st	125	29.29 ± 10.44		125	29.84 ± 10.44		0.676	-0.114
sss	2nd	97	27.99 ± 9.69	0.268	87	27.02 ± 9.43	0.584	0.491	0.201

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(392.03) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)

2st

t(422.24) = 0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.51)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(325.78) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(388.80) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.78)

ras_confidence

1st

t(302.41) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)

2st

t(363.51) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.04)

ras_willingness

1st

t(330.12) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.55)

2st

t(392.42) = 1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.92)

ras_goal

1st

t(316.69) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)

2st

t(380.21) = 1.63, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.62)

ras_reliance

1st

t(302.71) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(363.92) = 1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.25)

ras_domination

1st

t(336.49) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)

2st

t(397.25) = 1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.04)

symptom

1st

t(296.74) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)

2st

t(355.62) = -0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.79 to 1.45)

slof_work

1st

t(310.35) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)

2st

t(373.32) = 0.42, p = 0.673, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.50)

slof_relationship

1st

t(307.97) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(370.53) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.67)

satisfaction

1st

t(297.13) = 1.50, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)

2st

t(356.18) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.18)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(299.60) = 0.74, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(359.70) = 0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.36)

mhc_social

1st

t(302.74) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(363.95) = 0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.85)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(296.87) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(355.80) = 0.17, p = 0.869, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.03)

resilisnce

1st

t(317.10) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(380.62) = 2.12, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.47)

social_provision

1st

t(310.28) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(373.24) = 3.14, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.97)

els_value_living

1st

t(305.82) = 0.97, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(367.89) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(297.64) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)

2st

t(356.92) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.83)

els

1st

t(292.73) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(349.54) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.26)

social_connect

1st

t(297.84) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.49 to 1.06)

2st

t(357.20) = -2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-5.20 to -0.30)

shs_agency

1st

t(296.30) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.25)

2st

t(354.97) = 2.22, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.84)

shs_pathway

1st

t(308.04) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)

2st

t(370.61) = 2.41, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.45)

shs

1st

t(296.84) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.16)

2st

t(355.76) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.54 to 5.16)

esteem

1st

t(376.09) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)

2st

t(417.40) = 1.09, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.69)

mlq_search

1st

t(343.42) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(401.89) = 0.10, p = 0.918, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.02)

mlq_presence

1st

t(318.81) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)

2st

t(382.34) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.93)

mlq

1st

t(323.71) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.90)

2st

t(386.96) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.70)

empower

1st

t(306.05) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.65)

2st

t(368.18) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.79)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(354.54) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(408.23) = 1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.23)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(340.08) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)

2st

t(399.73) = -1.31, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.28)

sss_affective

1st

t(302.78) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(364.00) = -0.91, p = 0.365, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.53)

sss_behavior

1st

t(302.69) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.84)

2st

t(363.88) = -0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.67)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(300.48) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(360.91) = -0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.75)

sss

1st

t(290.97) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(346.73) = -0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.75 to 1.80)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(222.82) = 1.85, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.55)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(204.26) = 2.97, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(197.91) = 4.34, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (1.03 to 2.73)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(205.43) = 1.78, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.71)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(201.81) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.35)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(198.00) = 2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.09)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(207.14) = 3.66, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.28)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(196.35) = -1.95, p = 0.106, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.81 to 0.02)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(200.09) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.39)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(199.44) = 1.35, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.54)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(196.45) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(197.14) = 1.23, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.90)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(198.01) = 2.22, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.96)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(196.38) = 1.74, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.91)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(201.92) = 3.38, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.52 to 1.99)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(200.07) = 1.53, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.80)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(198.85) = 2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(196.60) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.03)

els

1st vs 2st

t(195.23) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.41 to 2.08)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(196.65) = -3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-3.67 to -1.00)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(196.22) = 2.49, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.63)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(199.46) = 2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.26 to 1.54)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(196.37) = 2.85, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.55 to 3.05)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(218.03) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.44)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(209.00) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.64)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(202.38) = 2.61, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(203.70) = 1.48, p = 0.280, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.11)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(198.91) = 2.27, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(212.01) = 2.89, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.24)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(208.10) = -3.25, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.38)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(198.02) = -3.83, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.52)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(197.99) = -2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.36 to -0.23)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(197.38) = -3.62, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.58 to -0.46)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(194.73) = -3.90, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.25 to -1.39)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(211.23) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.24)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(197.84) = -0.92, p = 0.719, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.27)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(193.31) = 1.68, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.50)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(198.67) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.38)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(196.09) = 1.56, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.93)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(193.37) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.79)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(199.90) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.49)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(192.20) = -2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.86 to -0.18)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(194.86) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.08)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(194.40) = 0.80, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.21)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(192.28) = 2.40, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.19)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(192.76) = 1.29, p = 0.396, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.87)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(193.38) = 1.84, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.69)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(192.23) = 2.17, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.02)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(196.17) = 2.07, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.43)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(194.85) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.31)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(193.98) = 1.54, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.84)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(192.38) = 1.27, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.75)

els

1st vs 2st

t(191.41) = 1.67, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.47)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(192.42) = -1.25, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.07 to 0.46)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(192.11) = 1.18, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.09)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(194.41) = 1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(192.22) = 1.61, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.15)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(207.74) = -1.33, p = 0.368, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.11)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(201.23) = 1.97, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.27)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(196.50) = 1.85, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.32)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(197.44) = 2.21, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.14 to 2.43)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(194.03) = 2.24, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.42)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(203.39) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.69)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(200.59) = -1.70, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.08)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(193.39) = -1.49, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.13)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(193.37) = -1.98, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.08 to -0.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(192.94) = -1.35, p = 0.358, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.17)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(191.05) = -1.89, p = 0.121, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.65 to 0.06)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance